Você está na página 1de 18

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M.

Lewis M. Fulton
Co-Director, NextSTEPS Program
University of California, Davis
1605 Tilia St., Suite 100
Davis, CA 95616, USA
Phone: +1 (530) 752-3004
e-mail: lmfulton@ucdavis.edu
Michael A. Replogle
Managing Director for Policy and Founder
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP)
1210 18th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20036, USA
Phone: +1 (212) 629-8001
e-mail: michael.replogle@itdp.org
Rosaria M. Berliner
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616, USA
Phone: +1 (347) 871-2742
e-mail: aria.berliner@gmail.com
TRB Paper #15-1370
TRB 94th Annual Meeting, January 11-15, 2015

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner

This paper summarizes new research evaluating a plausible High Shift (HS) scenario, in which
investment and policy around the world shifts toward favoring urban passenger travel by public
transport, non-motorized modes, and low-power electric vehicles rather than gasoline cars. Using
an urban model based on the International Energy Agencys Mobility Model this scenario is
compared to a baseline projection in which rapid growth of private motor vehicle use continues
to 2050. In HS, global 2050 urban light-duty vehicle (LDV) travel is cut by half; in non-OECD
countries this travel is fully replaced by increased use of public transport and non-motorized
modes, while in OECD countries person-kilometers of travel drop due to more compact land use,
telecommuting, and changing lifestyles. This leads to near convergence of per capita urban
person-kilometers between OECD and non-OECD regions. Compared to the baseline, the HS
scenario by 2050 would cut urban passenger transport CO2 emissions by 43 percent, from 4.9 GT
to 2.8 GT and trim cumulative 2010-2050 costs of vehicle purchase, fuel and operations and
transport infrastructure construction, operations and maintenance by US$113 trillion or 22
percent. The HS scenario would dramatically boost mobility for low and middle income people
worldwide, providing more equitable access to jobs, education, and healthcare, with less
automobile-dependent systems that typically do not cater to lower income groups. Investment
requirements and policy implications to achieve the scenario are considered, but more work is
needed to fully understand the challenges associated with achieving the envisioned future in
cities around the world.

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner
Urban transport systems evolve in response to investments and policy choices made by
governments about how to support different transportation modes. These can profoundly affect
the travel options and choices of individuals and businesses. Automobile dependency worldwide
is in part driven by underpricing and subsidies, planning, and investment practices (1). The forms
and modes of transportation used in cities can have a major impact on transport system
performance. Yet different cities around the world have followed very different paths and
patterns in terms of the manners in which people move, with some affluent OECD cities
sustaining or growing very high dependence on public transport, walking, and cycling and others
pursuing car dependence. With rapid urbanization, further investigation of these relationships
and choices is needed (2).
While other studies have investigated these relationships and compared scenarios for
specific cities or countries, no other global/regional study that these authors are aware of has
attempted to estimate the global impacts of moving toward a world dominated by some types of
urban mobility systems rather than others. Making global estimates requires a fair amount of
simplification of complex urban systems and variations from city to city, but it offers the
possibility of quantifying costs and benefits in a macro context. How much could CO2 be cut?
How much energy could be saved? What would it cost to develop urban mobility systems in a
different direction than they appear to be headed today? How would system benefits and burdens
be distributed based on income?
This paper reports on an 18-month research initiative undertaken by ITDP and UC Davis,
with funding from the Ford Foundation and ClimateWorks Foundation, to explore an alternative
future and estimate its potential impacts, while considering what types of investments and
policies would be needed to bring such a future about. We consider two main future scenarios: a
baseline urban scenario calibrated to the International Energy Agencys (IEA) ETP2012s 4
scenario (4DS) (3) and a newly developed alternative scenario called High Shift, with far
greater urban passenger travel by public transport and non-motorized modes than in the Baseline.
This project was inspired by the 2012 Rio+20 voluntary commitment by eight
multilateral development banks to devote $175 billion towards more sustainable transport
investments over the next decade (4) as well as other voluntary commitments to double public
transport use and expand sustainable transport (5). While this is only a small part of what it will
take to develop the needed transport systems, these inspire exploration of what a shift toward
more sustainable transport might look like, what it might cost, and what impacts it might have.
This analysis uses a somewhat simplified approach, though with considerable regional
and modal detail. It provides a base picture of urban travel around the world at a significantly
higher resolution than any previous study for example, with more modes and better estimates
of passenger travel by mode. The following sections describe the methodology, data and
assumptions used in the study, the baseline and High Shift scenarios, and a range of results and
implications, with conclusions for policy making and proposed extensions of this research.
The analysis is developed using an urban model based on IEAs Mobility Model (MoMo).
MoMo allows a detailed representation to be made of travel at a national level, and for this
project this framework has been extended to focus on urban travel. MoMo contains some urban
modes (e.g. city buses), and some modes are accounted for only at the national level (e.g. car

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner
travel). In this project, additional urban modes have been elaborated (e.g. metro, tram, commuter
rail) and the urban share of all modes is estimated using the MoMo world framework of 32
countries and regions (6). The existing national projection system and scenarios form the basis
for our urban scenarios, including the baseline and alternative, High Shift scenario (HS).
Although there have been few macro studies of modal shift potential, there are important
pre-cursers to this one. The 2009 Moving Cooler study (7) evaluated four dozen transport
strategies and policies that would affect United States motor vehicle activity and use, bundled in
various ways under different scenarios. It analyzed their impact on overall U.S. CO2 emissions
out to 2050 considering baseline and forecast travel markets using a motor vehicle stock model.
This formed the foundation of a related report to Congress (8).
More recently, and directly related to this project, the IEA used MoMo to generate
projections of total world transport and energy use across three scenarios, called 6DS, 4DS and
2DS, related to three atmospheric temperatures the scenarios result in (3). In particular, the ETP
2012 included an Avoid/Shift scenario that focused on shifting travel patterns, while holding
other things (like vehicle efficiency and fuel types) the same as the Baseline (4) scenario. This
provides a foundation for the HS scenario presented here. The IEA Avoid/Shift scenario included
all modes, not just urban, and for passenger travel targeted a 25% reduction in car as well as in
air travel in 2050 relative to the Baseline, with much of this travel shifted to bus and rail (and
with somewhat lower travel growth overall). IEA found this scenario cut energy use and CO2
emissions by 20% compared to the baseline, with lower costs for vehicles, fuels and
infrastructure. This study extends the IEA work by providing more detailed urban analysis, more
ambitious modal shifts corresponding to larger investment in public transport, walking, and
cycling, and deeper analysis of potential impacts.
MoMo is a straight-forward accounting system and the strength of the model is its detail it
contains a consistent representation of populations, travel per capita, travel mode shares, vehicle
sales and stock, vehicle efficiency, and the extent of road and rail infrastructure used by urban
vehicles. Using travel/energy identities, it estimates the resulting energy use, emissions, and
costs that are associated with the estimated and projected travel. MoMo projects all variables to
2050 using 5 year increments, with UN urban population projections and average national
GDP/capita as important underlying drivers of travel growth.
Traditionally MoMo has been a vehicle/technology oriented model, but in recent years
the travel structure of the model has been improved. For this project this travel and mode-choice
representation has been translated into the urban context, primarily by adding detail on urban
modes such as metros, trams, BRT, and commuter rail, and by estimating the urban share of
individual travel by car and 2-wheelers and relating these to UN urban population forecasts, with
new detail on cost, trip making and demographics. Global databases have been developed on
urban rail systems (metro, tram/LRT and commuter rail); for bus systems, the ITDP BRT
database has been used. Estimates of urban travel by car, 2-wheelers (motorcycle/scooter),
walking, and cycling have been made, though there is little data on the use of these different
modes per capita for most cities around the world, so many assumptions have been made. A
more complete documentation of assumptions and data used in this analysis will be made
available on the websites of ITDP and UC Davis by the time of the TRB 2015 conference (9).

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner
This new Urban MoMo has been developed and used mainly in a back-casting format,
to provide a plausible pathway to achieve a specific 2050 target in each country and region
covered. Deviations from the Baseline are developed to gradually move toward the alternative
targets, creating a single alternative future; this future is then analyzed in terms of its
characteristics and impacts. Many other alternative futures could be imagined that are not
considered here.
IEA ETP 2012 MoMo 4C global warming scenario (4DS) provides the basis for this studys
Baseline scenario (4). While IEAs 6scenario appears to be closer to the current path the world
is on, there are reasons to believe that a 4 future is more likely at this point, given recent policy
activity (4). 4DS assumesamong other thingsa global climate agreement that creates a
global CO2 pricing system to restrain GHG emissions growth, but without sector-focused shifts
in investments and policies that might flow from concerted pursuit of broader sustainable
development goals (4).
This baseline builds on recent trends in travel around the world, including a continued
strong rise in car ownership and use as incomes rise, with rapid increases in air travel as well. In
the urban context, car and (in some regions) motorcycle travel mode shares rise rapidly, with
travel by mass transit, walking and cycling slow growing or stagnant in most regions. Fuel
efficiency improvements occur fairly slowly except where fuel economy standards are in place;
alternative fuels do not gain much traction and petroleum fuels still dominate in 2050. Overall
we project the baseline urban transport share of total world transport energy use to rise from
approximately 28% (35% of land transport) in 2010 to 33% (42% of land transport), when
comparing our projections to those of the IEA 4DS.
The HS scenario has been built up assuming major departures from the Baseline in terms of
travel trends, particularly after 2020. The same overall growth trajectories in travel are assumed
but shifts to transit and non-motorized modes gradually occur (or shifts away from these modes
are greatly slowed) based on much better provision of high quality options in cities worldwide.
This in turn requires major investments in new systems and provision of infrastructure such as
BRT, rail, bike lanes, that are estimated in connection with the scenario. Targets for urban and
metropolitan area transit system development and associated passenger travel are linked to the
UN 2014 revisions of urban population through 2050 (with explicit projections for individual
cities to 2030), with urban population rising to 66% from 50% today (10).
A primary objective in developing the High Shift scenario is to consider what could
happen if policies and investments in parts of todays world enjoying more efficiently managed
urban transport were to be extended to most parts of the world. In other words, to take-to-scale
best practices that expand travel on high efficiency modes and low-carbon modes as much as
seems plausible while reducing travel (growth) from private cars/SUVs as much as plausible in
an off-setting fashion. Assumptions in developing the HS include:
Total urban passenger mobility through 2050 (measured as passenger-kilometers) is
roughly preserved from the Base scenario in the same year and region. However in some
cases lower levels of travel are accepted as part of improved urban planning that lowers
trip lengths, particularly in OECD countries.

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner

For private motorized modes, the ownership rates projected in the baseline that are
related to income growth are over-ridden by assuming lower rates, along with lower
travel per vehicle and somewhat higher occupancy rates. All of these would need to be
achieved through policy and pricing initiatives, since autonomous changes in lifestyle
that might affect car ownership are already included in the baseline.
For transit modes, the average number and length of systems, as well as the modal
capacity, frequency, speeds and load factors are all increased in HS in order to generate
higher passenger-kilometers (pkm) estimates. These are all checked against data on
existing high-performing systems, with the idea that the future average system would
perform closer to todays best systems.
It should be noted that neither travel speed nor travel time have been considered. We
assume that land use develops appropriately for the types of modes we are shifting to and
that trip lengths are shorter through increased network efficiency, transit oriented
development, and the implementation of other traffic demand management tools. It is
implicit in the HS scenario that public transport vehicles, walking, and cycling are given
increasing priority in street space allocation to ensure some growth in the productivity
and attractiveness of these modes in the traffic system, while car traffic in cities is
managed effectively with parking policies, pricing, and sound traffic operations


A key aspect of the projections in HS is growth in urban rapid transit systems, particularly rapid
transit such as metro, tram/light-rail (LRT), commuter rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) systems.
To project the extent of these systems, we estimated their extent in cities around the world today,
and developed targets for their expansion and new construction in cities out to 2050. A city size
analysis was undertaken in conjunction with data on system location and extent, to identify
patterns. We extended from 2030 to 2050 the UN projection of cities by city size based on the
UN projection of total urban population to 2050.
Using the projection of cities of different sizes, several observational approaches were used to
identify target levels of rapid transit system extent for different size cities. After a detailed global
database of existing systems was developed, these were sorted by city size and region around the
world. We considered the largest systems per capita by city size by region and the average ratios
of system length to population. A wide range of maxima occur with no particular pattern; cities
in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) regions generally have
larger systems per capita than in non-OECD. Europe has particularly large systems, as Table 1
shows. It also has much higher percentages of cities with systems than do most other regions.

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner
TABLE 1 Rapid Transit to Resident (RTR) Ratio 2014 and High Shift Scenario: Km per
million residents by mode and region (averaged over all cities over 300,000 population)
USA and Canada
OECD Europe
OECD Pacific-Other
Non-OECD Europe
Other Asia
Middle East
Other LAC




rail 2014





Statistical analysis was undertaken to evaluate relationships between system length and city
characteristics but found no significant correlations between city density or city GDP per capita
and system size. The only consistently significant variable was the population of the city.
Ultimately a fairly simple approach was used to choose system targets for average cities
in each part of the world that are also shown in Table 1. The propensity of European cities to
build extensive systems and the greater resources available to most OECD regions and China
were noted, with targets set by region. The difference in the target size of systems per city
reflects both differences in average size but also to some extent differences in the numbers of
cities with systems. The objective in this scenario is for as many cities as possible to have a
range of rapid transit systems, but realistically not all cities in a region will likely participate
regardless of the global push for transit that is implied in this scenario.
In the HS scenario, apart from rapid transit buses (BRT systems), there is steady growth in the
number of buses around the world, particularly in non-OECD countries. Assumptions include:
Ridership per bus increases from a 2010 range of 6-47 (US and Eastern Europe,
respectively) to a range of 20-50 in 2050, with most countries in the world in the 25-30
range by 2050. In contrast, in the baseline scenario, load factors generally decline.
Minibuses (under 24 seats), use MoMo 2010 base year data, with slow worldwide
baseline growth in numbers and ridership vs. a decline in the HS scenario, as riders shift
to larger buses and BRT.
In HS by 2050, most cities have sizeable BRT systems, particularly in the developing
world. Apart from the projection of BRT system growth, BRT ridership per unit system
length approaches the TransMilenio system in Bogota, with similar bus capacities, load
factors and vehicle speeds. All systems achieve at least a bronze or better ITDP BRT
Standard (10), by 2050 yielding 30-35 million pkm per lane-km for BRT (compared to

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner

40-42 million pkm per lane-km for Metro, up from 12-14 and 25-35 million pkm per
lane-km respectively today).
BRT is assumed to pull riders from motorized 2-wheelers, light-duty vehicles (private
cars), minibuses, and regular buses.


A major effort was made to build up a worldwide inventory of rail systems and system
characteristics (system length, ridership). The International Union of Railways (UIC) provided
IEA with an initial database of tram, light Rail, and metro systems, which was augmented with
internet searches and national, regional, and local government, and transit operator data. A
completely new commuter rail database was constructed. Assumptions include:
In 2010, by far the highest urban rail ridership is in Europe and OECD Pacific. Many
world regions have comparatively few systems and lower ridership levels on those
In the Baseline scenario, rail systems do not expand much and not that many new systems
are built, so there is only slow growth in urban rail ridership around the world.
In HS, there is steady growth in the number of rail systems and ridership around the
world to reach certain targets of rail access and ridership, though the levels per capita in
many regions in 2050 are still well below Europe and OECD Pacific today.
Metro, trams and light rail are featured more in OECD countries whereas BRT is featured
more in non-OECD countries, though all regions grow all systems to some extent.
Commuter rail systems are expanded significantly in all regions as part of a poly-centric
development strategy for metropolitan areas.
Walking is poorly evaluated world-wide due to lack of common definitions and analysis
frameworks. Virtually everyone walks daily to help meet their basic needs for some combination
of access to food, water, community, work, education, health care, shopping, and recreation.
Some of these walk trips are access to public transportation, or to cars parked near a trip end.
Including all short trips, there may be as many as several walk trips a day per person worldwide,
making walking the dominant travel mode by trip share. This study, like many, excludes many
shorter trips on foot, relying on 2010 data mainly from urban travel surveys which rarely include
an explicit accounting of all foot travel linked to other trips, or even the distances covered in full
walking trips. Somewhat more walking trips are assumed in non-OECD than OECD countries,
with the most trips per capita in Africa. Baseline walking is assumed to be relatively unchanged
compared to 2010, though with a slight decline in distance per capita; trip share is increased in
HS compared to 2010 to reflect the greater possibility for safe, convenient urban walking trips
with proper infrastructure and more compact land-use planning.
The HS scenario assumes an increase in the use of low power e-bikes and bicycles in
countries that dont already have high levels of use. While in the reference case there are high
levels of walking in most countries and high levels of biking in a few countries such as the
Netherlands, in HS the walking and biking trips would increase among people with motorized
options such as access to cars. Electric bicycles and low-powered electric scooters (collectively
called e-bikes) are in widespread use now only in China, but in HS would increase worldwide.
These are distinguished from higher powered, fast scooters and motorcycles and, if regulated
appropriately, could contribute to slower traffic speeds and safer conditions in areas where they

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner
become prevalent. We hypothesize future ownership levels that appear possible, and average use
per day and per year to generate PMT projections. Assumptions include:
Regular bike ownership is explicitly estimated and modeled and follows use patterns that
appear consistent with existing literature (11). Fairly good data exists on bicycle stocks
around the world, but average daily use of bicycles is poorly documented. We assume
relatively low daily use factors.
Bike use will rise as investments are made into bike lanes and parking, safety features,
and supportive policies, as has happened in various cities (12) and as projected by other
modeling (13). Here it has been assumed that most cities could achieve something
approaching average European cycling levels by 2050 but have only a fraction of levels
achieved today in Amsterdam or Copenhagen. Much higher shifts for cycling would be
plausible with more supportive infrastructure and policy.
For e-bikes, it is assumed that ownership is currently near zero except in China and parts
of Southeast Asia. Growth in ownership and use is based on slowly rising rates, and a
complementarity of use between e-bikes and bicycles. In addition, the use of internal
combustion engine (ICE) scooters and motorcycles in the HS scenario is set to decline
with much replacement by e-bikes over the coming 35 years. As a result, total travel via
e-bikes + ICE 2 wheelers does not grow much on net.
The total NMT pkms rise for all three modes over time, but more dramatically for e-bikes
with much slower increases for walking and biking.
To achieve the HS projection of urban passenger travel, the increase in travel by each mode was
combined (with consideration of how much each of these modes could logically increase given
increases to the others) and then compared to total travel in the Baseline, for each of the regions
and countries in MoMo. Growth rates in non-OECD countries were adjusted to support a target
50% reduction in private light-duty vehicle travel, except in the OECD countries, where total
urban passenger travel is supported by more intensive travel demand management through urban
planning that shortens trips, telematics and pricing, and demographic shifts. Some increase in the
average occupancy of light-duty vehicles occurs (e.g. via more ridesharing), so the pkm share of
car travel does not drop by quite as much as vehicle kilometers do. These summary results for
OECD and non-OECD regions of the world are shown in Figure 1a for total pkms and Figure 1b
for pkm per capita. This reveals that in 2010 those in the OECD travelled almost twice as much
per person as in the non-OECD, while by 2050 in the HS scenario, the travel per capita
converges around 8,000 kms per person per year, suggesting more equal levels of mobility than
exist today or in the baseline scenario. Results in greater regional detail along with detailed
assumptions and calculations are being prepared in a documentation report that will be made
available from the authors (9).

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner

FIGURE 1 Urban travel results of High Shift Scenario v. Base scenario, OECD and nonOECD, in 2050: total passenger-kilometers (1a) and per capita (1b).

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner
Since all urban areas in the world are included in the analysis, energy use and CO2 emissions
impacts can be reported at a global and regional level. Energy use is a function of the vehicle
travel and vehicle efficiency for each mode, calculated taking into account load factors and the
number of vehicles and vehicle kilometers needed to move people the specified passenger-kms.
Energy efficiency of different types of vehicles (based on MoMo vehicle efficiency estimates,
adjusted for urban in-use conditions) varies greatly, but not that much regionally. It does improve
significantly over time in the Baseline scenario, with identical improvements under HS.
Apart from the levels of travel, the critical assumptions behind the energy use and CO2
numbers are the efficiency of the vehicles and the ridership on those vehicles. For each region
and mode, Figure 2a shows efficiency per passenger kilometer and Figure 2b shows total energy
use. Public transit modes are far more efficient than light-duty vehicles, so shifts to these modes
cuts energy and CO2 per passenger-km significantly. Efficiency per passenger-km improves
more in the HS because ridership per vehicle is higher than in the baseline, based on assumed
improvements in system management, high quality services, urban densification, etc.

FIGURE 2 Energy Efficiency (2a) and Energy Use (2b) by Scenario, Region, and Mode
The resulting CO2 emissions by mode is shown in Figure 3. The dominance of light-duty
vehicles in current and baseline future energy use and CO2 emissions is evident, as is the
reduction in energy and CO2 emissions in the HS scenario. Compared to the baseline, the HS
scenario by 2050 would cut global urban passenger land transport CO2 emissions by 43 percent,

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner
from 4.9 GT to 2.8 GT. Specific fuel types are not shown but road modes are dominated by
petroleum fuel while rail modes are almost entirely electrified, as are e-bikes. Electricity
generation is decarbonized over time in line with the IEA 4 scenario. This is helpful but not
critical for experiencing substantial reductions in CO2 from the High Shift scenario.

FIGURE 3 Urban Passenger Land Transport CO2 Emissions by Mode, Region and
As described above, the system size (and thus infrastructure length) needed to support BRT and
urban rail travel was estimated using assumptions of the number and lane-kms of systems in
place around the world. These projections were in turn used to develop the infrastructure cost
estimates associated with these scenarios presented below. The total kilometers of system length
by region and year for the High Shift scenario is shown in Figure 4. In the OECD, the increase
for each mode is significant compared to 2010 but not huge in percentage terms (except for BRT
which is tiny in 2010). In non-OECD countries the required growth rates are far higher and
would require major, sustained investments over the coming decades to achieve. Growth is
fastest for BRT and commuter rail.

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner

FIGURE 4 2010 & High Shift Rapid Transport System Length by Mode by Region.
The major direct cost and investment implications of the High Shift scenario have been
estimated, relative to the baseline, from 2010-2050 in a cumulative and annual average fashion
including all market costs to private users and public agencies (i.e. taxpayers):
Vehicle purchase costs for all types of vehicles, all modes
Fuel costs for all modes and vehicle types
Vehicle and transit system operating and maintenance costs, including daily O&M costs
and infrastructure maintenance costs.
Infrastructure capital costs, i.e. the one-time investment costs to construct roads,
sidewalks, parking lots and structures, BRT systems, rail and bus systems
These estimates are based on averages from various reports, by country or region (4).
The cost analysis is summarized in Figure 5. Costs rise as a function of passenger travel
growth by mode and region. So, for example, the cost of infrastructure for roads and transit
systems rise in proportion to their importance in the two scenarios. Road and parking costs are
far lower under HS than in Baseline. Transit system construction and operation costs are far
higher under HS than Baseline. HS has far lower energy requirements and so creates large
energy cost savings.
Overall the total costs of the Baseline between 2010 and 2050 are roughly $500 trillion
($200T in OECD and $300T in non-OECD), whereas the costs in the HS scenario are about $400
trillion ($160T in OECD and $240T in non-OECD). The HS scenario would trim cumulative
costs by US$113 trillion or 22 percent.

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner

FIGURE 5 Summary of cost estimates 2010-2050 by scenario and region.

Figure 5 represents the monetary investment costs for the baseline and High Shift
scenarios. We have not directly investigated or attempted to value consumer preferences;
however, by preserving most PKT, we are attempting to preserve (and in some cases enhance
mobility and access. More specifically, the levels of use of various modes per unit of service
provided are based on current consumer preferences and behaviors with some shift towards
better practice standards of service. Consumer preferences are shaped by the overall travel choice
sets available to consumers, with their varying attributes of convenience, time, cost, and comfort.
This study implicitly considers the variability in consumer preferences across the spectrum of
current income and car ownership levels observed globally and how infrastructure investment
and policy can shift those preferences towards lower or higher mobility by light duty vehicles.
In addition to developing an urban version of MoMo, a new demographic breakout of urban
travel was developed and linked to this urban projection system. This first generation
Demographic Equity Economics model provides the opportunity to track travel by groups
within the population. The data foundation for this was a review of 25 national and urban
household travel surveys from around the world. This showed that few of the databases (or
associated analyses) were directly comparable, using different methodologies, different
questions, different group definitions and different mode classifications for travel. However, data
on car ownership by income category was found to be sufficiently comparable to establish
approximate base year travel mode shares for a number of regions (e.g. 14-17).
For 2010, passenger travel by mode across income groups sums to total travel on that
mode from the broader study; the main uncertainty is how the ridership breaks out across income
group going forward in time. Total travel is assumed to be significantly lower for lower income
groups, as suggested in travel surveys, but this difference declines somewhat as the poorest
quintiles income grows. Projections were constructed for 14 regional breakouts by income
quintile. Another important cross-check for this projection is that car ownership is a function of

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner
the income of each quintile, based on a global income-ownership study (18). Current Income
distributions are taken from World Bank data (19), total income projected in line with OECD
projections used in ETP 2012; income breakouts are assumed to retain the same distributional
patterns over time (no changes in GINI coefficient).
Despite uncertainties, the breakout of travel into income groups provides important
insights. Compared to 2010, baseline passenger-kms in 2050 about doubles. Much of this is from
increases in car ownership among higher income groups. Under the baseline, as in todays cities,
higher automobility by upper income travelers can be expected to result in higher traffic
congestion and competition for street space, which degrades the quality of public transport,
walking, and cycling that are used by lower income groups. Under HS, there is much more
growth of transit and NMT, rather than car growth. As availability of transit and NMT facilities
expands and ridership expands, more street space ends up being allocated to lower income
groups than for the cars used by mostly by the affluent. Thus, the bottom two quintile groups
benefit disproportionately from transit/NMT improvements, as do the top two quintile groups
from increases in car travel infrastructure growth.
In 2010 and even in the 2050 baseline, lower income groups have relatively low mobility
and very low car access, as Figure 6 shows. The vast majority of humanity is unlikely to have
access to a car even in 2050. In the HS scenario, there is much more even mobility across
groups. Figure 7 reflects this rebalancing of travel by mode with a smaller difference in travel
per capita in 2050 between the lowest and highest income groups under HS compared to the

FIGURE 6 Car Stock By Income Group 2010 vs. IEA 2050 4 vs. High Shift Scenario.

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner

FIGURE 7 Travel per capita by mode, income group, region and scenario.
Given the assumptions made and scenarios compared, the main finding is that a high-transit,
high-non-motorized-vehicle scenario that (at least in the developing world) provides similar total
mobility (in passenger kilometers) as a baseline, more car-dominated scenario, is likely to be
more equitable, less expensive to construct and operate over the next 40 years, and to sharply
reduce CO2 emissions.
This scenario is one example of many possible futures. It is not a prediction and may be
extremely challenging to achieve, requiring high rates of public investment. Strong policies and,
more specifically, a major re-direction in investments would be required to achieve the outcomes
outlined from this High Shift scenario. A principal purpose is to use this scenario as the basis to
investigate the implications of this future for a range of impacts and indicators of interest. Is high
quality mobility and access preserved? What might be the environmental, safety and health
impacts? What might the impacts of this future be for public finance, job creation and economic
well-being and overall sustainable development? These aspects are being further investigated.
1. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Claude Comtois and Brian Slack, The Geography of Transportation
Systems, Routledge, New York, 2006.
2. UN HABITAT, Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility: Global Report on
Human Settlements, Nairobi, 2013.
3. International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2012, Paris, 2012.
4. Commitment to Sustainable Transport: Joint Statement to the Rio+20 United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development by the African Development Bank, Asian
Development Bank, CAF, Development Bank of Latin America, European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, InterAmerican
Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank, and World Bank, June 2012.

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner
5. Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport, Creating Universal Access to Safe,
Clean and Affordable Transport, Shanghai, 2013.
6. International Energy Agency, The IEA Mobility Model As of February 2014, Paris,
7. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies
for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 2009.
8. U.S. Department of Transportation. Transportations Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, Volume 1: Synthesis, Report to Congress. April 2010.
9. Fulton, L., Berliner, R., and Gettani, D., Forthcoming, Analysis of Modal Shift Potential
and Impacts, for Urban Passenger Transport World-Wide.
10. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, The 2014 BRT Standard, New
York, 2014.
11. UN DESA, World Urbanization Prospects, New York, July 2014.
12. Buehler, R. and J. Pucher. Walking and cycling in Western Europe and the United
States: Trends, policies, and lessons, TR News 280, May-June 2012, p. 3442
13. MacMillan, Alexandra, Jennie Connor, Karen Witten, Robin Kearns, David Rees, and
Alaistair Woodward, The Societal Costs and Benefits of Commuter Bicycling:
Simulating the Effects of Specific Policies Using System Dynamics Modeling,
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 122, No.4, April 2014.
14. Secretaria Distrital de Movilidad. Informe de indicadores: Encuesta de Movilidad de
Bogota 2011, Link :
0Movilidad.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2014.
15. The World Bank. A Gender Assessment of Mumbais Public Transport. Mumbai, India.
June, 2011. Link: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/12347. Accessed
April 27, 2014.
16. Development Bank of Latin America. Observatorio de movilidad urbana (Urban Mobility
Observatory), 2007. Link: http://omu.caf.com/media/15966/omu_movilidad.xls.
Accessed March 15, 2014.
17. Hanoi, Vietnam: The Comprehensive Urban Development Programme In Hanoi Capitol
City of The Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2007) Link:

L.M. Fulton, M. Replogle, R.M. Berliner
18. Dargay, J., D. Gately and M. Sommer, 2007, Vehicle Ownership and Income Growth,
Worldwide: 1960-2030, January 2007, Link:
19. World Bank Poverty and Inequality Database, 2014. Link: